implementation of a decision dated 6.4.2011 delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No.712 of 2005 and, therefore, the age of superannuation of the petitioner is to be treated at 58 years instead of 55 years. The petitioner erroneously was tried to be superannuated much before 12 years from his usual reaching the age of superannuation and, therefore also, the action is not only unjust and arbitrary but contrary to settled proposition of law. Mr. Niral Mehta, learned advocate has further submitted that apart from this, even by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has confirmed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the age of retirement in any case is to be treated as 58 years and, therefore, at least the petitioner is legitimately entitled to all due benefits on the basis of 58 years and not 55 years. So, even if the issue of correction of date of birth is not be considered at this stage, at least this aspect is to be considered as all employees similarly situated have been extended such benefit by treating their age of superannuation at 58 years and, therefore, difference of this period is also to be paid to the petitioner. In view of this, learned advocate has requested the Court to grant the relief as
